Outcome measures for young people with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: A qualitative exploration of healthcare professionals' perceptions and practices.

Publisher: Public Library of Science Country of Publication: United States NLM ID: 101285081 Publication Model: eCollection Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 1932-6203 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 19326203 NLM ISO Abbreviation: PLoS One Subsets: MEDLINE

Original Publication: San Francisco, CA : Public Library of Science

Scoliosis*/therapy; Humans ; Adolescent ; Health Personnel/education ; Qualitative Research ; Delivery of Health Care ; Outcome Assessment, Health Care

Background: Limited knowledge exists on current use of patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) and performance measures for adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis (AIS), as well as health care professionals' (HCPs) perceived barriers and facilitators towards their use. This study's objectives were: 1) to explore current practice of HCPs when assessing outcomes for AIS 2) to understand perceived barriers and facilitators of HCPs to use PROMs 3) to understand perceived barriers and facilitators of HCPs to use performance measures.
Methods: A qualitative study recruited a purposive sample of HCPs from a tertiary hospital in the United Kingdom. Mean years of experience managing individuals with AIS was 11.8 years; and included surgeons, physiotherapists and nurses, educated at Bachelor, Masters and Doctoral level. Consent to participate and demographic information were collected in advance of the interviews. In-depth, virtual semi-structured interviews were informed by a topic guide based on current evidence. Interviews of approximately 45 minutes were audio and video recorded and transcribed verbatim alongside written field notes. Data were coded and analysed using inductive thematic analysis, involving researchers with topic and methodological expertise and input from a patient representative.
Results: Two themes emerged regarding current practice of using PROMs routine practice and personal evaluations. Four themes emerged as barriers to using PROMs for individuals with AIS: priority and support (e.g., HCPs focus on providing care), practical challenges (e.g., inadequate PROMs), patient-related challenges (e.g., patient preferences) and knowledge, education, and perceived value. Two themes emerged as facilitators: quality existing measure (e.g., sufficient psychometric properties), and priority and support (e.g., research department/culture). Themes for barriers to use performance measures were practicality (e.g., need physical space) and perceived value and knowledge (e.g., PROMs are more important), while the one theme for facilitators was practical consideration (e.g., acceptability).
Conclusions: Although HCPs perceived the value of using outcome measures, current practice indicates limited use for individuals with AIS. The findings revealed different barriers and facilitators to implement PROMs in practice. Adopting performance measure are limited due to lack of knowledge and perceived value alongside the practicality, while considering practical factors can improve the use of these measures in practice.
Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
(Copyright: © 2024 Alamrani et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2010 Jun;10(3):269-81. (PMID: 20545592)
Patient. 2021 Nov;14(6):711-718. (PMID: 34114170)
J Clin Epidemiol. 2010 Jul;63(7):737-45. (PMID: 20494804)
Sports Med Open. 2017 Dec;3(1):2. (PMID: 28054257)
Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2014 Jan;22(1):26-39. (PMID: 24216060)
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2020 Oct;101(10):1796-1812. (PMID: 32416149)
J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2018 Oct 03;2:46. (PMID: 30363333)
Asian Spine J. 2016 Dec;10(6):1170-1194. (PMID: 27994796)
Int J Orthop Trauma Nurs. 2022 May;45:100921. (PMID: 35217471)
Trials. 2016 Sep 13;17(1):449. (PMID: 27618914)
PM R. 2018 Sep;10(9):951-962.e3. (PMID: 29474995)
Lancet. 2008 May 3;371(9623):1527-37. (PMID: 18456103)
Patient. 2012;5(2):79-87. (PMID: 22428752)
Health Policy. 2021 Sep;125(9):1247-1255. (PMID: 34311981)
BMJ. 2015 Feb 10;350:h530. (PMID: 25670197)
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2019 Sep 11;20(1):418. (PMID: 31506099)
J Pediatr Psychol. 2022 Feb 14;47(2):225-235. (PMID: 34524430)
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2021 Sep 15;46(18):E985-E997. (PMID: 33496543)
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2020 Dec 1;45(23):E1556-E1563. (PMID: 32890302)
West J Nurs Res. 2016 Sep;38(9):1185-204. (PMID: 27106878)
Eur Spine J. 2013 Mar;22 Suppl 2:S195-202. (PMID: 22576158)
Int J Qual Health Care. 2007 Dec;19(6):349-57. (PMID: 17872937)
Physiother Res Int. 2019 Jan;24(1):e1756. (PMID: 30403320)
J Child Orthop. 2013 Feb;7(1):3-9. (PMID: 24432052)
BMJ Open. 2021 Dec 14;11(12):e053911. (PMID: 34907066)
Value Health. 2004 Jan-Feb;7(1):79-92. (PMID: 14720133)
J Man Manip Ther. 2011 May;19(2):91-9. (PMID: 22547919)
BMC Health Serv Res. 2012 May 22;12:96. (PMID: 22506982)
Hu Li Za Zhi. 2014 Jun;61(3):105-11. (PMID: 24899564)
World Neurosurg. 2017 Dec;108:328-335. (PMID: 28893693)
J Occup Rehabil. 2005 Sep;15(3):329-41. (PMID: 16119224)
Qual Life Res. 2018 May;27(5):1159-1170. (PMID: 29550964)
Spine Deform. 2014 Jan;2(1):34-39. (PMID: 27927440)

Date Created: 20240126 Date Completed: 20240129 Latest Revision: 20240204

20250114

PMC10817127

10.1371/journal.pone.0297339

38277344